Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

IMPORTANT GRAIN CASE

SARGENT V JAMESON.

We are Indebted to the " Tlmarn Herald " for tbe greater part of the following report of this 09se whloh was heard In the Supreme Oonr 1 , Timaru, yoaterdny, before Hl» Honor Mr Justice Dennlaton and a ipeolal jury. laaao Sirgent v Goo^ere Jameson (^oth of Aahburton) claim £1200 for valoe, *od £200 damages, for wrongful conversion of a pttrael of 1208 saoks of wbeah

Mr Wilding, and Mr Hay for pla'nt'ff ; Mr G. Harper ar d Mr Purnell, for defendant.

The following took their Beats *n the ■peolal jnry : — Meaira Q. L^log-Meaeoa (foreman), R. D. Hlbbard, P, Warelnu, F. Franks, D. Martin, T. Talbot, W. Priest, A. Mac, G. Buohanan, A. 0. Prlogle, R. Staneell, and L, T. Rayner. The main faotu of the osse as diaolosed were thai ia M«roh 1888, plaintiff, a farmer at Aahbarton Forks, delivered to defendant, a oommlesloa agent Id Aihbarton, foi ttonge, 1208 sacks of wheat. Towards tbe end of November, there h wing been one or more inconclusive conversations on the subject between them, defendant asked plaintiff if he (defendant) ahonld Bell the wheat with his own, to make ap a good line, and p'aintiff agreed, nothing being said abont price. The fol'o.vlng business day plaintiff revoked that authority as he had forgotten when he gave it that he had previously promised the refusal of (he wheat to Friedlander Bros. This was plaintiff's statement. Defendant denied that the authority was revoked m any way. Plaintiff boM the wheat to Friedlander Brow, for 4d Cd, f.0.b,, a few days later, but when' he gave them authority to receive it, defendant refused to deliver, as he had under the authority to himself previously sold it to W. P, Oowlishaw, with hli own wheat, at 4s.

The one rested upon the degree of re* llableneis to be attributed to the prlnolpais, who told entirely ooofllotlng stories as to the revocation of the agency. His Honor, la summing up, pointed out that the giving or the authority In the first place was admitted, and If the plaintiffs story was true, be hud revoked It as spe olfioally as ha htd given it. One or otber party must be inventing— or, to put it lest strongly | maot have drawn upon bis Imagination largely — It could not be pat bo simply a> to say that one or other was mlf taken. Either Jtmeson had Ignored the revocation In order to get the comm a cloD oa the sale, or Sargent sought to npsat a proper transaction In order to get a little extra ptloo, Wnloh story to believe the j ary must jadge by the demeanour of the witnesses m the box and from the sorronndlng olrou instances. There was no question that (he sale effeoted by Jtmeson was a fair sale at tbe time, that he sold at tbe oarrent market price. Indeed he sold his own wheat at the same time As to the measure of damages thew would be, if tbe jury found for tbe plaintiff, (1) tbe difference between the Ashburton prices on tbe two dates, representing 4* and 4s 6d f.o b. respectively, (2) interest on the value from the 26th November, and (3) a sum of £28 9a paid by plaintiff! to Friedlander Bros, as compensation for loss of commission. His Honor asked the jury if they found for the plaintiff on the general issue,, that he did revoke the agent's authority, to speoially find on the third item, as an indication whether they thought the alleged sale to Friedlander Bros, was or was not a bona fide one.

The witnesses examined for the plaintiff were the plaintifLMessrg MoOwen, banker, H. Friedlender, D. Thomai, and J. Qaane, merohants of Ashburton, and the person who threshed the wheat, and oq the other side the defendant only was examined.

The jury retired at 6 p.m. and returned m about a quarter of an hour with a verdict for defendant.

Mr Harper moved for judgment. Hia Honor gave judgment for defendant with oosts on the highest scale ; also certifying for a special jury, and allowing for a second counsel.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18890503.2.8

Bibliographic details

IMPORTANT GRAIN CASE, Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2125, 3 May 1889

Word Count
689

IMPORTANT GRAIN CASE Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2125, 3 May 1889

Working